Manipal University

Department of Chemical Engineering

CE 1531- TRANSPORT PHENOMENA LABORATORY- 1

III YEAR, 5th SEMESTER, 2019

EXPERIMENT #4

Major losses

INSTRUCTOR:

Dr. Anees Ahmed Khan

GROUP #3

MEMBER: Sukhmani Singh

Experiment carried on: September 11, 2019

Report submitted on: September 19, 2019

PRELAB (10) _______

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (10) _______

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES/SCOPE/PROCEDURE (30) _______

RESULTS & DISCUSSION (30) _______

CONCLUSIONS (5) _______

REFERENCES (5) _______

APPENDIX

a) Original data, sample calculations, other information (5) _______

GENERAL COMPLETENESS

a) Conciseness and neatness (5) _______

TOTAL (100) ______

Table of contents
Contents
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
objective...................................................................................................................................................... 10
Scope:.......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Apparatus required: .................................................................................................................................... 11
Schematic diagram...................................................................................................................................... 11
Description of the apparatus: ..................................................................................................................... 12
Procedure:................................................................................................................................................... 12
Results and discussions: .............................................................................................................................. 14
Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Recommendation:....................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
References .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Executive summary
Longer pipe with a smaller diameter is bound to have high head losses and high frictional
factors for many different volumetric flow rates. In this experiment we studied the major
losses that appear to take place in pipes. The aim was to calculated the friction factor and
friction losses. Two pipes, one of a large diameter (2.2cm) and second a smaller diameter
(1.6cm) was used to measure the discharge of water in each pipe while the other pipe was kept
closed. The velocity of the fluid, the head loss, Reynold’s number, and friction factor was
calculated and a relationship between these variables was determined.
In fluid flow, friction loss (or skin friction) is the loss of pressure or “head” that occurs in pipe or
duct flow due to the effect of the fluid's viscosity near the surface of the pipe or duct. The
frictional losses are referred to as major losses (hl) while losses through fittings, etc., are called
minor losses (hlm). Together they make up the total head losses (hlT) for pipe flows.
For the pipe diameter of 2.2cm the Reynold’s number ranged from 21624.61 to 42331.64 and
the friction factor extends rom 0.006493 0 to 0.007916 respectively . for the pipe diameter of
1.6cm the Reynold’s number ranges from 30997.28 to 54187.84 and the friction factor ranges
from 0.006814 to 0.007758 respectively.
The flow was determined to be turbulent. The graph1. Which shows the relationship between
the Reynold’s number and the friction factor showed a decreasing linear trend which shows
that at the maximum Reynolds number the friction factor was the minimum.
Graph2. Between the friction factor and the square of the velocity showed a similar trend.
Graph 3 depicts the relationship between the theoretical value and the experimental friction
factor. the values come out to be very different and were not consistent it was because the
theoretical values do not take into the account the physical factors that are present there.

Introduction
Pipe flows belong to a broader class of flows, called internal flows, where the fluid is completely
bounded by solid surfaces. In contrast, in external flows, such as flow over a flat plate or an
airplane wing, only part of the flow is bounded by a solid surface. The term pipe flow is
generally used to describe flow through round pipes, ducts, nozzles, sudden expansions and
contractions, valves and other fittings. In this experiment we will limit our study to flow through
round pipes and pipe fittings, such as elbows and valves.

In fluid flow, friction loss (or skin friction) is the loss of pressure or “head” that occurs in pipe or
duct flow due to the effect of the fluid's viscosity near the surface of the pipe or duct. [1] In
mechanical systems such as internal combustion engines, the term refers to the power lost in
overcoming the friction between two moving surfaces, a different phenomenon

When a gas or a liquid flows through a pipe, there is a loss of pressure in the fluid, because
energy is required to overcome the viscous or frictional forces exerted by the walls of the pipe
on the moving fluid. In addition to the energy lost due to frictional forces, the flow also loses
energy (or pressure) as it goes through fittings, such as valves, elbows, contractions and
expansions. This loss in pressure is mainly due to the fact that flow separates locally as it moves
through such fittings. The pressure loss in pipe flows is commonly referred to as head loss. The
frictional losses are referred to as major losses (hl) while losses through fittings, etc, are
called minor losses (hlm). Together they make up the total head losses (hlT) for pipe flows.
Hence:

hlT = hl +hlm

Head losses in pipe flows can be calculated by using a special form of the energy equation
discussed in the next section.

Calculation of Head Loss

Major Losses
The major head loss in pipe flows is given by

where L and D are the length and diameter of the pipe, respectively
V is the average fluid velocity through the pipe and
f is the friction factor for the section of the pipe. In general, the friction factor is a function of
the Reynolds number and the non-dimensional surface roughness, e/D.
The friction factor is determined experimentally and is usually published in graphical form as a
function of Reynolds number and surface roughness.
When the Reynolds number is below 2000 and the flow can be assumed to be laminar, the
friction factor is only a function of the Reynolds number and is given as:
Fd = 64/Re
Major losses, which are associated with frictional energy loss per length of pipe depends on the
flow velocity, pipe length, pipe diameter, and a friction factor based on the roughness of the
pipe, and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent (i.e. the Reynolds number of the flow).

Although the head loss represents a loss of energy, it does not represent a loss of total energy
of the fluid. The total energy of the fluid conserves as a consequence of the law of conservation
of energy. In reality, the head loss due to friction results in an equivalent increase in the
internal energy (increase in temperature) of the fluid.
By observation, the major head loss is roughly proportional to the square of the flow rate in
most engineering flows (fully developed, turbulent pipe flow).

The most common equation used to calculate major head losses in a tube or duct is the Darcy–
Welsbach equation .
[2]
Darcy–Welsbach
In many practical engineering applications, the fluid flow is more rapid, therefore turbulent
rather than laminar. Under turbulent flow, the friction loss is found to be roughly proportional
to the square of the flow velocity and inversely proportional to the pipe diameter, that is, the
friction loss follows the phenomenological Darcy–Welsbach equation in which the hydraulic
slope S can be expressed

where we have introduced the Darcy friction factor fD (but see Confusion with the Fanning
friction factor);

fD = Darcy friction factor

Note that the value of this dimensionless factor depends on the pipe diameter D and the
roughness of the pipe surface ε. Furthermore, it varies as well with the flow velocity V and on
the physical properties of the fluid (usually cast together into the Reynolds number Re). Thus,
the friction loss is not precisely proportional to the flow velocity squared, nor to the inverse of
the pipe diameter: the friction factor takes account of the remaining dependency on these
parameters.

From experimental measurements, the general features of the variation of fD are, for fixed
relative roughness ε / D and for Reynolds number Re = V D / ν > ~2000,[a]

With relative roughness ε / D < 10−6, fD declines in value with increasing Re in an approximate
power law, with one order of magnitude change in fD over four orders of magnitude in Re. This
is called the "smooth pipe" regime, where the flow is turbulent but not sensitive to the
roughness features of the pipe (because the vortices are much larger than those features).
At higher roughness, with increasing Reynolds number Re, fD climbs from its smooth pipe
value, approaching an asymptote that itself varies logarithmically with the relative roughness ε
/ D; this regime is called "rough pipe" flow.
The point of departure from smooth flow occurs at a Reynolds number roughly inversely
proportional to the value of the relative roughness: the higher the relative roughness, the lower
the Re of departure. The range of Re and ε / D between smooth pipe flow and rough pipe flow
is labeled "transitional". In this region, the measurements of Nikuradse show a decline in the
value of fD with Re, before approaching its asymptotic value from below,[3] although Moody
chose not to follow those data in his chart which is based on the Colebrook–White equation.
At values of 2000 < Re < 4000, there is a critical zone of flow, a transition from laminar to
turbulence, where the value of fD increases from its laminar value of 64 / Re to its smooth pipe
value. In this regime, the fluid flow is found to be unstable, with vortices appearing and
disappearing within the flow over time.
The entire dependence of fD on the pipe diameter D is subsumed into the Reynolds number Re
and the relative roughness ε / D, likewise the entire dependence on fluid properties density ρ
and viscosity μ is subsumed into the Reynolds number Re. This is called scaling.
The experimentally measured values of fD are fit to reasonable accuracy by the (recursive)
Colebrook–White equation,depicted graphically in the Moody chart which plots friction factor
fD versus Reynolds number Re for selected values of relative roughness ε / D.
[3]
A detailed review of other explicit equations is given by Gregory and Fogarasi . Different piping
materials are often used in the chemical process industries, and at a high Reynolds number, the
friction factor is affected by the roughness of the surface.
Evaluating the Darcy-Welsbach equation provides insight into factors affecting the head loss in
a pipeline.
Consider that the length of the pipe or channel is doubled, the resulting frictional head loss will
double.
At constant flow rate and pipe length, the head loss is inversely proportional to the 4th power
of diameter (for laminar flow), and thus reducing the pipe diameter by half increases the head
loss by a factor of 16. This is a very significant increase in head loss, and shows why larger
diameter pipes lead to much smaller pumping power requirements.
Since the head loss is roughly proportional to the square of the flow rate, then if the flow rate is
doubled, the head loss increases by a factor of four.
The head loss is reduced by half (for laminar flow) when the viscosity of the fluid is reduced by
half.
The friction formed in the pipes can be found by using the Colebrook equation and solving for
the friction factor,

When a fluid is a fully developed turbulent flow, the friction factor depends on the Reynolds
number and the relative roughness. The Reynolds number determines if a flow is laminar,
turbulent, or transient. The relative roughness is the ratio of the mean height of roughness of
the pipe to the pipe diameter.
Reynolds number can be found out by
Re = ρdv/ µ
If the Reynolds number is greater than 3500, the flow is turbulent. Most fluid systems in
nuclear facilities operate with turbulent flow. In this flow regime the resistance to flow follows
the Darcy–Weisbach equation: it is proportional to the square of the mean flow velocity. The
Darcy friction factor depends strongly on the relative roughness of the pipe’s inner surface.

The most common method to determine a friction factor for turbulent flow is to use the Moody
diagram. The Moody diagram (also known as the Moody chart) is a log-log plot of the Colebrook
correlation that relates the Darcy friction factor, Reynolds number, and the relative roughness
for fully developed flow in a circular pipe. The Colebrook–White equation.[4]
It must be noted, at very large Reynolds numbers, the friction factor is independent of the
Reynolds number. This is because the thickness of laminar sublayer (viscous sublayer)
decreases with increasing Reynolds number. For very large Reynolds numbers the thickness of
laminar sublayer is comparable to the surface roughness and it directly influences the flow. The
laminar sublayer becomes so thin that the surface roughness protrudes into the flow. The
frictional losses in this case are produced in the main flow primarily by the protruding
roughness elements, and the contribution of the laminar sublayer is negligible.
objective: To study the losses due to friction in pipes and determine the friction factor

Scope: the scope pf this experiment is to study the head losses due to major losses (friction
factor in pipes). It also focusses on determining the friction factor from the Reynold’s number
correlation and then doing a comparative study on the experimental value and the value found
by the correlation equation.
Apparatus required:
Major loss setup ( fluid friction apparatus), stop watch< water supply, drain pipe etc. mercury(
Hg) for manometer (250 gm).

Schematic diagram:
Description of the apparatus:
Test rig consists of a battery of 12.5mm pipes of stainless steel, aluminium and copper of length
over 100 times the diameter with pressure tappings at either ends to measure the losses due to
pipe friction - major losses. To measure the minor losses, a 15mm(1/2&quot;) GI pipe is fitted
with a bend, an elbow, a sudden enlargement and a sudden contraction. Suitable flow control
valves are provided in all the pipe lines. Each test pipe and pipe fitting is provided with pressure
tappings to measure the pressure loss. A differential manometer (without mercury) is provided
to measure this pressure loss. The pressure tappings are connected separately to a manifold
which in turn is connected to the manometer for easy change over. A strong iron stand is
provided for supporting the pipe lines. A stop watch and an M.S. collecting tank of size 90 liters.
with a gauge glass scale fitting, a drain valve and a bend are provided to measure the actual
flow rate. A 220 volt AC, 0.5 HP, single phase monoblock ISI pumpset with suitable pipe fittings,
strainer foot valve, and switch is provided to supply water to the test rig.

Procedure:
Starting procedure:[6]
1. clean the apparatus and make all tanks clean from dust.
2. Fill the sump tank with water and ensure no friction particle are there.
3. Close all flow control valves given on the water line and open by pass valve.
4. Operate the flow control valve to regulate the flow of the water in the desired section.
5. Measure and record the heights of the base of the reservoir and the center of the pipes
in the table in the data sheet.
6. Start with the reservoir filled to the highest level indicated in the data sheet for the pipe
you are examining.
7. Record the exact, initial height of water in the reservoir.
8. Ensure that all manual valves to all the pipes are closed.
9. Open the manual valve only to the pipe under study.
10. One person should operate the stop-watch and the solenoid switch, which starts the
flow.
11. Open the solenoid valve and start the stop-watch simultaneously.
 12. Shut off the valve and the stop-watch simultaneously when the water level drops to the
next height on the table in the data sheet for this pipe. Collect all the water flowing
through the piping system in the graduated cylinder.
13. Measure and record the actual height to which the water level has dropped.
14. Measure and record the volume of water collected in the graduated cylinder.
15. Record the time taken to collect the water.
16. Empty the water from the measuring cylinder into the bucket provided
17. Repeat steps 7 – 14 for all other reservoir levels indicated in the Table for this pipe.
18. Close the manual valve for this pipe.
19. Repeat steps 2 –16 for the various pipe systems specified by the lab instructor.

Closing procedure:

1.wheen the experiment is over close all manometer pressure taps first.
2.Switch off the pump.
3. switch off power supply to panel.
4. Drain the apparatus with the help of given drain valve.
Results and discussions:
friction factor v/s reynold's number for pipe 1 of 2.2
cm
60000

50000
42331.64
reynold's number

40000
30141.46
30000 reynold's number
21624.61
friction factor
20000
Linear (reynold's number)
10000
1
0
0 1 2 3 4
friction factor

Fig,1 graph between the friction factor vs reynold’s number for pipe 1 having diameter = 2.2cm

friction factor v/s square of velocity for pipe 1 of 2.2 cm

diameter
40000

35000
29337.49
30000
square of velocity

25000

20000 square of velocity

14872.02
15000 friction factor

7654.59 Linear (square of velocity)

10000

5000
1
0
0 1 2 3 4
friction factor

Fig.2 graph of friction factor v/s square of velocity for pipe 1 having diameter = 2.2cm
 expeimental friction factor v/s theoretical friction
factor for pipe1
1.2
1
1
friction factor(theo)

0.8 friction factor (

theoretical)
0.6
friction factor(
0.4 experimental)
0.2 Linear (friction factor (
0.0235492440.0254831060.021807206
theoretical))
0
0 1 2 3 4
experimental friction factor

Fig.3 graph of experimental friction factor V/S theoretical friction factor

Fig.1 shows the relationship between the friction factor v/s the Reynold’s number of pipe of
diameter= 2.2 cm that was measured during the experiment. the X- axis (horizontal axis)
represents the friction factor (in cm). the values ranges from 0.006493 0cm to 0.007916 cm
respectively
On the Y-axis (vertical axis) represents the Reynold’s number. The values ranged from 21624.61
to 42331.64 respectively. We obtain a negative linear co-relationship between the friction
factor and the Reynold’s number from the fig.1 which shows this relationship.
Fig.2 this graph depicts the relationship between the friction factor and the Square of the
velocity which was measured experimentally in this experiment. This graph shows a negative
correlation that wen the velocity is maximum the friction factor is minimum. On the X-axis
(horizontal axis) it shows the friction factor. It ranges from 0.06493 0cm to 0.007916 cm
respectively
While on the Y-axis (vertical axis) shows the square of the velocity that was calculated after
measuring the discharge rate as well as the area of the pipe. It is measured in cm2/s2.it ranges
from 7654.59 to 29327.49 cm2/s2.
Fig3. Shows the relationship between the experimentally observed friction factor and the
theoretically calculated friction factor using the co-relationship given. X-axis (horizontal axis)
shows the experimental friction value, it ranges from 0.06493 0cm to 0.007916 whereas the Y-
axis (vertical axis) shows the theoretical friction value, it ranges from 0.0218 to 0.0254
respectively.
Discussion:
The experimental values for the large diameter pipe (Di=2.2cm) decreases with increasing
velocity, this trend can be seen in the figure no.1 as at the maximum Reynold’s value we get the
minimum value of the friction factor. the more turbulent the flow of the fluid the less will be its
friction factor.
In the second pipe with a smaller diameter (Di=1.6cm) the experimental data had a consistent
negative trend, the friction factor in the pipe with the smaller diameter is going to be higher
than that of the pipe with a larger diameter. This is due to ratio of surface area to volume; a
higher percentage of the fluid, in this case water, that ran through the pipes was touching the
walls of the pipe with the smaller diameter, creating more friction in the fluid as a whole. A
higher friction force in the system contributes to a higher energy loss, causing the system to be
less efficient, and therefore less desirable from a design stand point.

The theoretical values were for the friction factor were calculated by the Colebrook equation.
The experimental friction factors versus velocity squared were plotted for the large pipe and
the small pipe. The diameter of the pipe affects the friction factor by the smaller diameter pipe
causing an increase at low velocities with a gradual decrease as the velocity of the fluid
increases. The larger diameter pipe begins at a lower friction factor while also seeing a gradual
decrease as velocity of the fluid decreases. The smaller diameter pipe having a larger friction
factor is caused by the 3:1 ratio of the surface area of the inner pipe to the cross sectional area
of the pipe for the two given sections when comparing the smaller to larger, respectively.

In turbulent flow, losses are proportional to the square of the fluid velocity, V2; here, a layer of
chaotic eddies and vortices near the pipe surface, called the viscous sub-layer, forms the
transition to the bulk flow. In this domain, the effects of the roughness of the pipe surface must
be considered. It is useful to characterize that roughness as the ratio of the roughness height ε
to the pipe diameter D, the "relative roughness". Three sub-domains pertain to turbulent flow:
In the smooth pipe domain, friction loss is relatively insensitive to roughness.[7]
In the rough pipe domain, friction loss is dominated by the relative roughness and is insensitive
to Reynolds number.
In the transition domain, friction loss is sensitive to both.
The trend in the figure no.2 depicting the friction factor v/s square of velocity for pipe 1 having
diameter = 2.2cm also shows a negative linear trend.
Figure.3 (graph between the experimental and theoretical friction value) This graph shows that
there was a large difference in the theoretical values and the experimental values. The large
percent errors for this pipe does not show that the experimental data was wrong, but shows
that the calculated values of the friction factor do not take into effect of all of the losses coming
from the pipe.
The experimental values are much more accurate than the theoretical for real life applications.
From the data that was taken, it shows that the friction increased when the data was taken
from the small pipe compared to the large pipe. The data also shows that the friction factor
decreased as the velocity increased. This shows that there is less friction in the pipes as the
velocity increases. When comparing the theoretical and experimental values for the large and
small pipes, it shows that they theoretical data is much more accurate with a larger pipe than
with a smaller pipe.
This can be explained by saying the theoretical values are unable to take into effect any
environmental factors within the pipe other than the material of the pipe itself. Some examples
of environmental factors include but not limited to a fouling factor on the inside of the pipe
accumulated over time, temperature of the fluid, though it will only affect the density of the
fluid minimally.

Conclusion:
The smaller diameter pipe produced a higher friction factor across the section which was
caused by the higher ratio of the surface area of the inner pipe to the cross sectional area. The
frictional factor for the smaller diameter consistently produced a higher frictional factor, for
various flow rates ranged from 0.006814 to 0.007758. The frictional factors for the larger
diameters ranged from 0.06493 to 0.007916.
This is due to the higher ratio of the surface area of the pipe to the cross sectional area. This
higher frictional factor corresponds to a higher head loss within the pipe as well. A negative
linear trend Is also seen in the figure.1 which shows that at the high Reynold’s number the
friction factor is minimum. Therefore, more turbulent the liquid the friction factor will be
minimal.
The relationship between pipe diameter and fluid friction factor is inversely proportional, the
larger the diameter the lower the friction factor.
The experimental friction factors versus velocity squared were plotted for the large pipe and
the small pipe. The diameter of the pipe affects the friction factor by the smaller diameter pipe
causing an increase at low velocities with a gradual decrease as the velocity of the fluid
increases
Shows the relationship between the experimentally observed friction factor and the
theoretically calculated friction factor using the co-relationship given. X-axis (horizontal axis)
shows the experimental friction value, it ranges from 0.06493 0cm to 0.007916 whereas the Y-
axis (vertical axis) shows the theoretical friction value, it ranges from 0.0218 to 0.0254
respectively.
This graph shows that there was a large difference in the theoretical values and the
experimental values. The large percent errors for this pipe does not show that the experimental
data was wrong, but shows that the calculated values of the friction factor do not take into
effect of all of the losses coming from the pipe

Recommendation:
To avoid any error while performing the experiment the following are some of the
recommendations that should be kept in mind while performing the experiment.
1. Never run the apparatus if the power supply is less than 180 volts and above 230 volts.
2. Never fully close the delivery valve and by-pass valve at a time.
3. Make sure the air bubbles are out of the manometer pipe.
4. To prevent clogging of moving parts, run pump at least once In a while.
5. Always use clean water.
6. If apparatus is not in use for more than one month, drain the apparatus completely.
7. If pump gets jammed, open the back cover of pump and rotate the shaft manually.
8. If pump gets heated up, switch off the main power for 15 minutes.
Appendix

1) Parameters given:

A= 0.077 m2 = 770cm2
g= 9.81 m/2s = 980 cm/s2
ρm= 13600 kg/m3 = 13.6 g/cm3
ρw= 1000 kg/m3 = 1 g/cm3
d= 0.022m ( for pipe ¾’’) =2.2cm
= o.o16m ( for pipe ½’’)= 1.6cm
L= 1m ( for pipe ¾’’) = 100cm
= 1m (for pipe ½’’) = 100 cm
µ= 0.00089 Kg/m.s = 0.0089 g/cm.s

2) Raw data:
Upper pipe diameter= 2.2 cm

s.no. Manometer Manometer Δh Time Discharge Discharge ΔH Q

left limb Right limb initial final
(h1) (h2) height H1 height H2
1. 9.7 10.6 0.9 20 5 16.9 11.9 458.15
9.7 10.6 0.9 20 4 16.3 12.3 473.55
9.8 10.6 0.8 20 5 16.9 11.9 458.15

2. 10.1 10.4 0.3 20 5 13.5 8.5 327.23

10.1 10.5 0.4 20 13.5 22.3 8.8 338.8
10.0 10.4 0.4 20 5 13.6 8.6 331.1

3. 9.5 11 1.5 20 5 21.8 16.8 646.8

9.5 10.9 1.4 20 5 22 17 654.5
9.5 11 1.5 20 5 21.9 16.9 650.65
Lower pipe diameter: 1.6 cm

s.no. Manometer Manometer Δh time Discharge Discharge ΔH Q

reading reading rate rate final
Left limb h1 Right limb initial H1 H2
h2
1. 6.8 13.1 6.3 20 5 20.8 15.8 608.3
6.9 13.1 6.2 20 5 20.6 15.6 600.6
6.8 13.1 6.3 20 5 20.8 15.8 608.3

2. 8.1 12.2 4.1 20 5 17 12 462

8.2 12.2 4.0 20 17 28.9 11.9 458.15
8.1 12.1 4.0 20 5 17.1 12.1 465.85

3. 9.0 11.3 2.3 20 5 14 9 346.5

9.0 11.4 2.4 20 14 22.8 8.9 342.65
9.1 11.4 2.3 20 5 14.1 9.1 350.35

3) Process data and graphs

For pipe 1 ( d= 2.2 cm)
Assuming the pipe is made of stainless-steel Ɛ= 0.0015mm

Area Velocity Hf (cm) Friction Reynold’s Friction reynolds Friction

(cm2) (cm/s) factor (cm) number factor f number factor
(standard (standard (theoretical)
deviation) deviation)
3.7994 120.5848 11.34 0.008407 29807.49 0.007916 30141.46 0.023549

3.7994 124.6381 11.34 0.007869 30809.42

3.7994 120.5848 10.08 0.007473 29807.49

3.7994 86.12676 3.78 0.005493 21289.76 0.006493 21624.61 0.025483

3.7994 89.17197 5.04 0.006833 22042.51

3.7994 87.14534 5.04 0.007154 21541.54

3.7994 170.2374 18.9 0.00703 42081.16 0.006795 42331.64 0.021807

 3.7994 172.264 17.64 0.006408 42582.12

3.7994 171.2507 18.9 0.006947 42331.64

friction factor v/s reynold's number for pipe 1 of

2.2 cm
60000

50000 42331.64
reynold's number

40000 reynold's number

30141.46
30000 21624.61
friction factor
20000

10000 Linear (reynold's

1 number)
0
0 1 2 3 4
friction factor

friction factor v/s square of velocity for pipe 1 of 2.2 cm

diameter
40000

35000
29337.49
30000
square of velocity

25000

20000 square of velocity

14872.02
15000 friction factor

7654.59 Linear (square of velocity)

10000

5000
1
0
0 1 2 3 4
friction factor
 expeimental friction factor v/s theoretical friction
factor for pipe1
1.2
1
1
friction factor(theo)

0.8 friction factor (

theoretical)
0.6
friction factor(
0.4 experimental)
0.2 Linear (friction factor (
0.0235492440.0254831060.021807206
theoretical))
0
0 1 2 3 4
experimental friction factor

For pipe 2 ( d= 1.6 cm)

Area Velocity Hf (cm) Friction Reynold’s friction reynolds Friction

(cm2) (cm/s0 factor (cm) number factor number factor
standard (standard (theoretical)
deviation) deviation)
2.0096 302.6971 79.38 0.006792 54417.45 0.006814 54187.84 0.020672

2.0096 298.8654 78.12 0.006857 53728.62

2.0096 302.6971 79.38 0.006792 54417.45
2.0096 229.8965 51.66 0.007663 41329.71 0.00754 41329.71 0.021923

2.0096 227.9807 50.4 0.007602 40985.29

2.0096 231.8123 50.4 0.007353 41674.12
 2.0096 172.4224 28.98 0.007642 30997.28 0.007758 30997.28 0.023397

2.0096 170.5066 30.24 0.008155 30652.87

2.0096 174.3382 28.98 0.007475 31341.69

friction factor V/S reynolds number for 1.6cm

pipe diameter
60000 54187.83845

50000
41329.70729
reynold's number

40000
30997.28047
30000
friction factor

20000 reynold's number

Linear (reynold's number )
10000
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
friction factor (cm)
 friction factor v/s square of velocity for pipe 2 of
120000
1.6 cm diameter
100000 90857.1893
square of velocity

80000

60000 52854.84612
square of velocity
40000 29731.92145 friction factor
Linear (square of velocity)
20000
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
friction factor

expeimental friction factor v/s theoretical friction

factor for pipe 2
1.2
1
1
friction factor(theo)

0.8 friction factor (

theoretical)
0.6
friction factor(
0.4 experimental)
0.2 Linear (friction factor (
0.0235492440.0254831060.021807206
theoretical))
0
0 1 2 3 4
experimental friction factor
 4. Sample calculations

𝐴∗𝛥𝐻 770∗15.8
Flow rate = Q = = = 608.3 cm3/s
𝑡 20

3.14∗2.2
Area = = 3.7994 cm2
4

𝑄 608.3
V = 𝐴 = 3.7994 = 120.5848 cm/s

𝜌𝑚
Hf = Δh( 𝜌𝑤 -1) = 11.34cm

𝐻𝑓∗2∗𝑔∗𝑑
f= = 0.008407
4𝐿𝑉2

𝜌𝐷𝑉
Reynold’s number = = 29807.49
µ

using the Colebrook–White equation:

f= 0.023549
References

1. https://lo.unisa.edu.au/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=466227 [18.09.2019]
2. https://www.studocu.com/en/document/university-of-newcastle-australia/fluid-
mechanics/mandatory-assignments/example-lab-report-losses/1670250/view [
18.09.2019]
3. https://www.academia.edu/33962432/LAB_REPORT_EXPERIMENT_3_HEAD_LOSS_I
N_PIPES_PNGE_211_AN_INTRODUCTION_TO_FLUID_MECHANICS [18.09.2019]
4. http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~alvi/EML4304L/webpage/experiment_5[17.09.2019]
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_loss[18.09.2019]
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/friction-factor[18.09.2019
7. https://www.studocu.com/en/document/university-of-newcastle-australia/fluid-
mechanics/mandatory-assignments/example-lab-report-losses/1670250/view[18.09.2019]
8. https://christinarichard.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/4/9/38497961/major_and_minor_losses_
report.pdf[18.09.2019